Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Hammerhead]

A news story about some of the recent idiocy by teenagers downtown Indy caught my attention a few minutes ago due to a phrase used by the news anchor.

The statement was "...IMPD commanders met with Simon Properties, the operater [sic] of the city-owned mall."


I know that Indianapolis and Simon had been partnering together to develop and get the mall constructed over a long and litigation filled process. However, after some preliminary Googling, I'm only seeing that Simon still only runs the property, and doesn't lease it from the city.

This then would mean that 35-47-11.1 kicks in on the property and that carry there is legitimately allowed, despite the "rules" Simon attempts to enforce.

OC (or CC if that's your thing) legally at Circle Center and tell the rent-a-cops and their IMPD cohorts to pound sand.

 

[AndersonIN]

Found this:

EDITORIAL: Circle Centre worth watching | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

It says that the Simon Group is Co-Owners!! Don't know what that means good, bad, or any other way but all I could find.

Indiana Business Journal stated:

'The 15-year-old complex that resurrected downtown’s retail trade will reach a crossroads in the coming months, as deals for anchor stores Nordstrom and Carson Pirie Scott come up for renewal. As IBJ reported last week, the city is involved, along with mall manager and co-owner Simon Property Group, in negotiations to retain the stores.'

 

[Hammerhead]

I would think that "co-ownership" would still not negate 11.1 and would remove any consideration to the "leased property, tenant's rules" section.

They may co-own the mall, but their "rules" don't trump law.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I would think that "co-ownership" would still not negate 11.1 and would remove any consideration to the "leased property, tenant's rules" section.

They may co-own the mall, but their "rules" don't trump law.

If a private company is charged with the upkeep of a public facility they are allowed to make their own rules and they have the authority of any private property owner. So yes you are incorrect if I am reading it right.

 

[Hammerhead]

What are you basing your thought on?

35-47-11.1-(10) For an event occurring on property leased from a political subdivision or municipal corporation by the promoter or organizer of the event:

(A) the establishment, by the promoter or organizer, at the promoter's or organizer's own discretion, of rules of conduct or admission upon which attendance at or participation in the event is conditioned; or

(B) the implementation or enforcement of the rules of conduct or admission described in clause (A) by a political subdivision or municipal corporation in connection with the event.

Certainly this section doesn't apply to Circle Center. In the case of this property, where does the city owned (i.e. public owned) property separate from the Simon owned property?

 

[eldirector]

Well, I believe you are kind of correct. It is certainly not illegal to carry (openly or otherwise) at the Circle Center Mall. It is, however, against the management companies policy. You can't be arrested (well, "can't" may be too strong of a word. Shouldn't), but you can be asked to leave, and if you refuse, cited for trespass.

It does aggravate me that the government can skirt their own rules and regulations by passing off management to a private entity.

 

[KW730]

Maybe I'm not understanding, but are you implying that if it was controlled by the city that carry would be illegal? Or are you saying that because Simon holds an interest in the property they can enforce their no weapons rule?

 

[weenpeen]

As I understand it, you can't be arrested for carrying there, but can be asked to leave. I would rather leave than disarm. Big crowded mall with no weapons signs? No thanks.

 

[stephen87]

What he's saying is, if the city owned and ran the property, then them telling you to leave for carrying would be illegal.

However, because Simon is a co-owner of the property, he would like to know if it is still illegal for them to enforce the policy.

My understanding is because it is co-owned by a private entity it can still make its own policies regarding subjects such as this.

 

[eldirector]

A) The city cannot make any rules on firearms, ammo, or firearm accessories. Period.

B) A private business may have pretty much any policy they want, especially as it concerns firearms.

Since the Mall is leased to Simon to actually run, they can (and do) have a policy on this, and can enforce it.

Though, the wording of 35-47-11.1-10 is interesting, as it is specific to events and promoters/organizers.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

In the end, its irrelevant if Simon owns, co-owns with the city, or leases it. You can't be arrested for carrying there in any of the 3 scenarios, but you can be arrested for trespass under any of the 3.

An agent of the property is a private citizen, and can still tell you to leave. They are not acting on the city's behalf, they are acting on Simon's behalf or whatever store they happen to be an agent of. Refuse to leave, you are subject to arrest for trespass. The city isn't enforcing any firearms ordinance, nor is the city telling you that you have to leave. A private citizen who holds the authority of agent of the property is telling you you have to leave and the city, should it come to that, is enforcing the trespass law, not a firearms ordinance.

 

[Hammerhead]

I was going to address the person who attempted to muck up the exercise, but I see that issue has been taken care of.

The point of this thought experiment was to consider how legal citizens should be treated when carrying at Circle Center.

A LEO cannot come into a city park and hassle a person for carrying, including issuing a trespass, or this would violate 11.1.

Circle Center is owned by the city. The city has partnered with Simon Inc. to co-own and manage the property, but this does not change the public interest in the property. Simon has its "rules" in place, which we know do not favor legal carry.

However, separate the city owned property from the Simon owned property. I do not believe that you can. Simon does not lease the property, so 11.1-10 doesn't apply to them, and the tenants of the mall are not leasing the property for an event, so 11.1-10 doesn't apply to them either.

My contention is that as a city owned property, the "rules" that the private side have in place are trumped by the laws as codified in 11.1, which preempts all local gov't when it comes to firearms. Otherwise, the city could partner with any private company to "manage" or "develop" city owned property and allow the private side to sidestep the law with their "rules." This, I believe, would violate the purpose of 11.1.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Found this:

EDITORIAL: Circle Centre worth watching | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

It says that the Simon Group is Co-Owners!! Don't know what that means good, bad, or any other way but all I could find.

Indiana Business Journal stated:

'The 15-year-old complex that resurrected downtown’s retail trade will reach a crossroads in the coming months, as deals for anchor stores Nordstrom and Carson Pirie Scott come up for renewal. As IBJ reported last week, the city is involved, along with mall manager and co-owner Simon Property Group, in negotiations to retain the stores.'

From the link in that article

The building itself is owned by a partnership of 20 mostly local companies, including Simon. The ownership group holds a mortgage note that matures in 2013, with a balance due of $66 million.

It sounds like the building it privately owned, so.... I'm guessing their property their rules.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I was going to address the person who attempted to muck up the exercise, but I see that issue has been taken care of.

The point of this thought experiment was to consider how legal citizens should be treated when carrying at Circle Center.

A LEO cannot come into a city park and hassle a person for carrying, including issuing a trespass, or this would violate 11.1.

Circle Center is owned by the city. The city has partnered with Simon Inc. to co-own and manage the property, but this does not change the public interest in the property. Simon has its "rules" in place, which we know do not favor legal carry.

However, separate the city owned property from the Simon owned property. I do not believe that you can. Simon does not lease the property, so 11.1-10 doesn't apply to them, and the tenants of the mall are not leasing the property for an event, so 11.1-10 doesn't apply to them either.

My contention is that as a city owned property, the "rules" that the private side have in place are trumped by the laws as codified in 11.1, which preempts all local gov't when it comes to firearms. Otherwise, the city could partner with any private company to "manage" or "develop" city owned property and allow the private side to sidestep the law with their "rules." This, I believe, would violate the purpose of 11.1.

After talking to Guy about it, it does appear to be an underhanded work around to pre-emption.